UPJOHN'S DRUG XANAX ON TRIAL
bny at crl3.crl.com
Wed Mar 25 15:08:39 EST 1998
In article <6f7m8a$1bo at dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Steven B. Harris <sbharris at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <6f4q4q$2dk at crl3.crl.com> bny at crl3.crl.com (Bradley Yearwood)
I see and agree with your point. I do feel that there is a place for
lawsuits, because there is some small incidence of true malpractice
(both clinical and in drug manufacture: contamination or wrong concentration).
There is also a place for sensible judgment. Sensible judgment cannot occur
when so many factors conspire against it. The public remains scientifically
and medically ignorant. There is a general abdication of personal
responsibility. The noble ideal of rooting for the underdog has been
subverted and perverted. The risk of adverse consequences for a cynically
bad plaintiff is near zero. Add lawyers and agitate. Presto! Bonanza-
Then the criminal justice industry gets their hungry and vicious talons into
the process, and you have a whole new mess.
> ... But the tests for thyroid are much more straight forward.
>And the people don't sue you if their body chemisties don't agree with
>what you and they decide would be a good experimental regime. And
>they shouldn't be able to with Xanax, either (or at least not easily,
>or sucessfully). It's time people grew up.
Agreed. If one is to demand absolutely certain and guaranteed results in
medicine, there is only one choice of doctor: Kevorkian.
More information about the Neur-sci